https://www.guancha.cn/ZhangWeiWei/2021_12_10_617940_s.shtml
We do not envy the Western democratic model at all, Zhang Weiwei: Thank you, Wang Guan. And thank you for the press corp for coming to this fascinating discussion on the issue of democracy. So, I will make a short presentation with my PowerPoints. My topic is “Democracy: China versus United States”. As we all know, democracy is controversial in many ways. If you ask Americans whether China is democracy, many of them will say “No, it's autocracy”. If you ask Chinese, most Chinese today will tell you: “America’s democracy? No, it’s a Moneytocracy. “Money determines everything”. So, whether given this kind of controversy, we can have a kind of a meaningful intellectual discussion on the issue of democracy. I’m thinking of whether we can use a kind of working definition. I’d like to quote, the famous line from Abraham Lincoln “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” And, then I tried to compare China and United States, item by item, to see which democracy is the genuine democracy, which democracy is better. Now, interestingly, we have just received this fascinating result, conducted by Dalia Research concerning the issue of democracy. In case of China, 13 % people surveyed say their government serves a minority. In other words, more than 80 % believe their government works for vast majority of Chinese population. In the United States, 52 % say their government serves a minority. Most people, more than half, believe their government serves minority. And then, this is the study by Dr. Zhong Nanshan, very famous in China. He said, just a few days ago, if you live in China today, in terms of freedom from contracting the COVID-19 or from the COVID-related deaths, China today is at least 606 times safer and freer from COVID-related deaths and 1,678 times safer from contracting the disease. The calculation is very simple. If you look at the figure for the death toll of the COVID-19. United States is roughly 170 times of China'sin terms of absolute figure, and the China's population is 4.2 times that of United States. So Chinese more than 600 times safer and freer from death relating to COVID-19. And then look at this median net household assets. Indeed, you know, four decades ago, China was way behind the United States in terms of the personal well-being, wealth, et cetera. But today we can make a very interesting comparison. This is about net household assets. There are two columns for the average family level. In that case, the United States is higher than the China. But at the median level, the figure is totally different. If you look at the United States in 2019, it's closer to one thousand USD per household at the median level. So, in Chinese yuan, it's close to seven thousand. Now, in the case of China, it's slightly more than double that of the United States. Of course, the figure I used is for urban households. We don't have figures for rural families, so far, we haven’t got that statistics yet. Hopefully, by next year we're going to have one and we can make comparisons. BIf you look at the rising living standard in the countryside, it's also rising faster than we expected. And then, of course, this famous Pew survey, which you can check back 5 years ago, 10 years ago and today. So, in that case, 91 % Chinese surveyed believe China is on the right track, 41 % believe the United States is on the right track. For the UK, I’m sorry, 21 %, for France, 20 %. There must be a lot of violation of human rights in these countries given so many people are not happy with direction of their country. So, these are figures, survey conducted by reputable international institutions. So, I’ll say with certainty, concerning “for the people”. The Chinese model, Chinese political system or Chinese democracy have delivered and much, much better than the US model. Consider the “of the people”, I just give you one figure, 90% of Chinese civil servants come to form ordinary background, if you look at remake by Joseph Stiglitz said that, “The US is noew of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%.” As most people read this country, most of them are for the rich. And then, “by the people”, that’s where most controversy occurs. In the western political discourse today. Indeed, multi-party system, universal suffrage, itself would mean “government by people”. Yet, from Chinese point of view, this is, as Eric just mentioned, it's about institutional procedures, and saidthat it is the bestprocedures ofdemocracy.Procedures and the substance, may be same, may be very different. So the Chinese approach is always first focus on explore substance. And then, procedures will take shape. We have a traditional philosophy since ancient time, it's called the “Dao” and the “Shu”. “Dao” means overall objective, overall purpose, overall principles that govern“Shu”, govern procedures. That's also one way why China can carry out reforms while many so-called liberal democracies cannot. Because they are very rigid with procedures. And then if you look at the substantial democracy, the Chinese approach can be called “to ensure good governance for the people”. That's very important. So I submit this thesis a long time ago, I think 15 or 20 years ago, I said we need to have a paradigm shift, a shift from what's called the "democracy versus autocracy" and "democracy", "autocracy" are defined by the West and the West only, to "good governance versus bad governance". What’s substantial democracy? It means to ensure and achieve good governance as its primary objective. And China has been doing that and rather successful. Again, if you look at the same research from Dalia Research, interesting, it's the issue of so-called democracy deficits. In the case of China, 84 % people surveyed think democracy is important, 73 % view their country, China, as democracy. So, the democracy deficit 11 %. In the United States, 73% think democracy is important and 49% view their country as democracy. So, democracy deficit is 24 %. And this is done by Dalia Research commissioned by ex-prime minister of Denmark, Mr. Rasmussen, and he is of course as you all know, quite hostile to the Chinese political system. So that result shows a lot about how “by the people” had not been really achieved even in the eyes of most Americans. Then that is more interesting. It's again a study by PEW survey. Very few in anypublic survey think American democracy is a good example for other countries to follow. This is a study of major countries, about 20 or so. And 57% said US democracy used to be a good example, but has not been in recent years. And slightly, surprisingly, 72 % Americans don't think that US is a good model of democracy for other countries. I think, just as professor Martin Jacques mentioned, United States must need a lot of courage, you know, as if nothing has happened, without this storming of the Congress, theCapitol hill, and things are as usual. Actually, even within the United States, many people are thinking of the problems with democracy. If this summit were to be held, seems it will be held. I hope the number one item or the topic will be, (just as)a few years ago, the Economist have a cover story, it's called "What's Gone Wrong With Democracy?" And which quotes me as Professor Zhang Weiwei claims: “US democracy is deeply flawed. Itelects second-rate leaders”. Actually, my original remark was “it produces third-rate leaders”. Unfortunately, that happened. And “by the people” the Chinese way, I would describe the Chinese Communist Party as a "holistic interest" party. It differs tremendously from the Western political parties, I would call them "partial interest" parties. And this "holistic interest" party actually is a part of China's own tradition. China was first unified in 221 BC. China is a civilizational state, in the sense that it's an amalgamation of hundreds of states into one, over its long history. So, since China's first unification in 221 BC, China has been practicing what we may call a unified ruling entity. Otherwise, the country became ungovernable and broken apart. China practiced American model of democracy after the Republican Revolution in 1911, and then the country degenerated into civil wars and fighting between warlords, each warlordsupported by certain western powers. So, this is indeed a common sense in Chinese political culture, governing a country of amalgamation of hundreds of states into one, you follow this principle of a unified ruling entity. If you prefer, China being on the oneparty system for more than 2,000 years, yeah. So, the Communist Party is a continuation,evolution,and development of that tradition. Otherwise, it will have problems of country’s disintegration. Now behind this, again, since China's long tradition of meritocracy. China invented Public Civil Servant Examination System, the “Ke Ju System”. So today the way China elected leaders is a system, which I call “Selection+Election”, if the US model is about "Election". Which model is better? I would say, you know, Chinese model slightly better, if not much better, because we elect competent leaders. If you look at the members of the political bureau, especially standing committee, most of them have already governed over 100 million people before they came to their present positions. It's vigorous process, selecting competent leaders. Most of them work twice as number one of Chinese province as party secretay or governor, et cetera. So arguably, the Chinese leadership today is the most competent in the world. And then, it’s about competence, it’s about ability for reform. You know, in order to carry out reforms, I think you need to have a "holistic interest" party. Why? In so many liberal democracies, there are no way to reform. Whoever makes reform will step down, you know. The point is that you need to overcome vested interests. Only a political institution, political force, which can represent the vast majority, holistic interest of your people, you can push for reform, and China is the expert on reforms, we are conducting reforms every day, every month, every year. And I think it's time for the West to think hard on how to reform its political system, otherwise, the system will go way down. And also, because you are a holistic institution, you can plan for the future for next year, next 5 years, next 10 years, next 100 years, for next generation. That’s definitely advantage of Chinese political system. Now, having said “of the people, by the people, for the people”, now I draw something from Chinese experience, which Abraham Lincoln did not know much about. I call it “to the people” and “with the people”. Now let's discuss “to the people”. It's mainly about decision-making process. If you compare the quality of decision-making between China (and) United States, I would say Chinese decision quality is much better, because we practice this democratic centralism, which we borrowed from Soviet Union, but reinvented, according to Chinese practice. Like, for example, how China makes its 5-year plan. Roughly, it takes 1 year and a half in the making. In the process, you have hundreds of rounds of consultations, with think tanks, with experts, with general public, within the party, outside the party. And then if you look at this, what we call whole-process democracy, not only you produce a plan, but also you have the review of the implementation of the plan, and in the end, the execution of the plan. Many of you are here for many years. We have, for instance,“Liang Hui”, the two sessions in March and then we review the 5-year plan and annual plan. And then, at the end of the year, usually in December or November, we have the CPC Central Committee Conference on Economic Affairs, again we reviewed that. And in each and every “Liang Hui”, Chinese prime minister and his work report exactly tell you a to-do list to what extent we have finished that and we have not finished that. It's very earnest. You compare the quality of the work report of Chinese government and the State of the Union Address of the American presidency. The Chinese quality is much, much higher. Each line and every line relates to people's daily life and people appreciate that. And for the United States, just now, Kishore mentioned this case, a study by Martin Gillen and Benjamin Page, basically the wealthy few move policy, while the average America has little power, after their reviewing answers to 1779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002. So, I think it's a matter of, not just electing a leader every 4 years, it is about decision-making process, to what extent your decision reflect the will of the people. So that's “to the people”. We adopt principle of “from the people, to the people” one round, “to the people, from the people” another round. So, we go several rounds of consultation democracy, then reach mature decision. I always joke with my British friends. I said why bothering with the referendum, it’s very old-fashioned. If you compare this with smartphones, it's like 2G, you know. We are now in the age of 5G. We are to really move with changing times, only 3 %, some difference, the country becomes divided and becomes a huge problem. If adoptting a consultative democracy, and democratic centralism, I can assure you with the Chinese model, even with 30 % difference, we can reach consensus and move the nation forward. Lastly, “with the people” that's famous line from Xi Jinping, we should stay forever with the people. That's we mean it, it's not just words, it's practice. Each party leader, political bureau member, has what's called “contact points” with different parts of the country, provinces. You go there regularly, you review their situation, et cetera. At the end of the day, i we have to ensure a balance between political power, social power and power of the capital, to ensure that this balance of the three powers will be in favor of the vast majority of the population. Otherwise, the system will be in trouble. From my point of view, in the United States, it is a balance of the three powers in favor of the super rich. I've got one line to say, difference between Chinese political system and American political system. The Chinese system is very clear, the richest 100 individuals cannot dictate the Political Bureau. In the United States, the 100 rich individuals most likely can dictate the White House or even less than 100 individuals. As a result, you have all the problems, you know. So, I think United States system needs serious reforms. I'm thinking of this example. You know I really feel deeply upset. The United States spent $2.3 trillion on the Afghan war. It's killing, destruction, gross violation of human rights. $2.3 trillion, in the past 20 years. In the case of China, since General Secretary Xi Jinping came to power, we eradicated the last batch of poverty, extreme poverty, closer to 100 million people. We spent $250 billion. So, it's roughly 10 times less money than US spend on Afghan war. We completely finished this task of ending poverty. Why the United States could not use the $2.3 trillion on ending the poverty in the United States? Indeed, with this money, again, in theory, a hypothesis, with Chinese model adapted to different situations, we can wipe out global policy, in theory, at least. But this money, huge amount, spent on war, on destruction, on killing, on violation of human rights. Why so? One interpretation which many peopleknows, actually, the media should expose that, the interest, vast interest of the military industrial complex as already mentioned in 1950s by President Eisenhower. So, the enimy of the United States is not Russia, not China, but the United States itself. Same with the West, the enimy of the West, not China, Russia, or other country, but the West itself. The end of democracy is the particular system of democracy as it is practiced now. Lastly, my conclusion and a bit of memory. Just now Wang Guan mentioned my debate with professor Fukuyama exactly 10 years ago, in June 2011. It almost coincided with this Arab Spring, and Mubarak was toppled. And he said in this debate, China may also have a kind of Arab Spring and I said no chance. And I made the forecast, I said, on the contrary, Arab Spring itself will become Arab Winter. In the end, it became Arab Winter, most people agreed today. And then he said China needs a political reform for multi-party system, one person one vote. I said both China and United States need political reforms, but from my study of the American political system, the US political model, I insisted, needs more reform, substantial reforms. Why? I said because your system is a product of the pre-industrial era. From this process of fighting COVID-19, we saw there is no clear responsibility, division of labor between the federal government and states government. That's a huge problem for modern society. And then I also said simple-minded populism may eventually prevail in the United States. And Fukuyama was confident it will not happen in American society, and because it's a mature democracy with free media, free press. I said you are slightly a bit naive. And well, on all this, I would say, you know, China has practiced people's democracy. In other words, “of the people, by the people, for the people, to the people, with the people” on all five fronts. In my humble view, the Chinese model and system works better and much better than the American system. For this summit for democracy, I am pretty sure that as a media people, I assume you can feel the power of the Chinese providing, we wish to report or not. Indeed, I can assume that is a source of tremendous joy for many Chinese, especially the younger generation. It reminds me about the famous tweet, when this storming of the capitol hill occurred “If United States saw what has happened on the capitol hill, the United States would invade the United States, to liberate the United States from the tyranny of the United States” or another tweet, you know, “that's the first quote that took place in Americas without the participation of the US embassy” these kinds of tweets will go around in Chinese internet, social media. I'm pretty sure about that. Because indeed, for especially Chinese young generation, American democracy is increasingly a joke. As for Taiwan’s democracy, it's a greater joke. And Now, from my study of the political system, actually, my debate with professor Fukuyama, I said this already, 10 years ago, as in the political system, Chinese vision is already way beyond the American model. Maybe I can draw an analogy, which may not be very appropriate. This kind of summit for democracy is a kind of old game. Where freedom house will measure, which countries is making progress, which countries moving backwards et cetera. It's almost like the competition, in the color film industry, between Fuji and Kodak. In that era,they compete fiercely with each other. But the Chinese model is more or less for the digital age. So we are really looking beyond, moving beyond, we are not bothered with that. If many countries, people in the world prefer the western model, Americans prefer the American model. We respect your choice, but we do not envy you. To be honest, people like us and Eric, we have some sympathy for you. You have to improve otherwise, without reform, it will be going way down. So, it's not "the end of history", it’s the end of "the end of history". That's all the remark I offered to professor Fukuyama 10 years ago. So, my conclusion remains valid. Thank you very much! -- Anda menerima pesan ini karena Anda berlangganan grup "GELORA45" dari Google Grup. Untuk berhenti berlangganan dan berhenti menerima email dari grup ini, kirim email ke [email protected]. Untuk melihat diskusi ini di web, kunjungi https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gelora1945/210839241CED43128D1EF667227DD391%40A10Live.
